I see how this is going to go, this threads going to be just another pissing contest between our fictional factions and what matters more to that.

Sometimes I wish you lot would just look at the story from a wide angle lens. The alliance has a legitimate reason to want to take Garrosh down. Vol'jin has a current and very direct reason to end him because of his people. The alliance doesn't trust the horde and its rebellion, so why should the rebellion trust the alliance, for anything more then a convenience.

---------- Post added 2013-04-10 at 01:30 AM ----------

Originally Posted by mvallas

Bullspit...

Blizzard didn't say that at all. In fact, Blizzard actually outright said that they couldn't do as much with the Worgen and the alliance storyline as they liked because they ran out of time. (so much for "we release things when they're ready!")

Man Trassk... you're not even trying anymore.

they outright said vanilla wow had more quests and areas in the alliances favor, so come cataclysm certain areas we given to the horde to balance it out. I don't have to give it anymore justification then that.

they outright said vanilla wow had more quests and areas in the alliances favor, so come cataclysm certain areas we given to the horde to balance it out. I don't have to give it anymore justification then that.

Quote it, source it.

Until then, conjecture and bullshit to support your opinion. Also lets go from vanilla to cataclysm, because it's not like 2 expansions were in between there. Guess they're a bit slow on making up for things.

I see how this is going to go, this threads going to be just another pissing contest between our fictional factions and what matters more to that.

Sometimes I wish you lot would just look at the story from a wide angle lens. The alliance has a legitimate reason to want to take Garrosh down. Vol'jin has a current and very direct reason to end him because of his people. The alliance doesn't trust the horde and its rebellion, so why should the rebellion trust the alliance, for anything more then a convenience.

Whoa whoa whoa, let me get this straight Trassk. On several occasions you have NO problem turning threads like these into a pissing contest. You complain about the story and if something does not go a particular way it's horrible (especially if Thrall died). Also, you're the one who gets up in arms and upset more than just about anyone else in these forums ABOUT those 'fictional characters.'

He was looking at the 'wide angled lens' about the scale of the story. Sure, the alliance benefits from Garrosh being killed, but the story is as horde centric now (maybe more, maybe less) as it was in Cata.

Seriously, are you even trying? Or you desperately clinging to that high horse you roll around on constantly?

Originally Posted by Standsinfire

Me: whyumad* fixed. Seriously though, it's only because they rapin' eveerbody in here and I don't want you to be snatched out yo' windows.

Originally Posted by noepeen

If that were my dog, I'd Hulk Smash the fuck out of that raccoon.
Or I'd shit my pants.

Sometimes I wish you lot would just look at the story from a wide angle lens.

And I wish you'd look at the story from a focused one.
The actions of each character you write in a story must ALWAYS be consistent with their personality, what they know and what they THINK they know.
When an author starts hamstringing their characters intentionally because it "doesn't fit the story they want to tell," then that author is disrespecting the characterisations of those characters.

It's like a bad fanfic where half the characters are OOC at any given moment and the side characters' lives revolve around the protagonists for no good reason.

It became clear that it wasn’t realistic to try to get the audience back to being more hardcore, as it had been in the past. -- Tom Chilton

It's almost like people are jumping on what's written and not seeing what he's actually trying to get across. It's not "I'm doing this if you don't do this." it's "Well, you could do this, but here's an example of what could easily happen if you did this without my help.". All he's saying is that without his help there would be larger casualties, and he's playing on the "Big Bad Troll Man" image to work a little scaring them into help too, laying down an unlikely (Considering who Vol'Jin has shown himself to be) alternate outcome that looks horrifying to the Alliance.

We as players, and our Horde characters who dislike Garrosh and have been helping Vol'jin this whole time know that. The Alliance? All they see is a dangerous Troll in a bad position who could be a potential temporary ally, and who could very well be capable of what he just said he might do if they don't help him/let him help. It's just a scare tactic.

He's just making a point, though it does raise an interesting question...why wouldn't the alliance just let the Horde do the exact thing Voljin presents? Let them rush in and kill themselves, then clean up the mess? It's not their city or their warchief. But I'm giving this too much thought. The raid makes absolutely no sense when the Alliance get to raid a Horde city, especially since there will more than likely be a metric fuckton of the Horde there. Well, I suppose it makes sense to have the Horde wave around little "For the Alliance" banners while someone else gets all the glory for taking down their megalomaniac warchief amirite.

And oh, the Alliance are lining up to die for their mortal enemies instead of letting them take the heat for them.

Works both ways.

No it really doesn't. You Don't seem to understand how well the alliance might have the right to take down Garrosh, the horde is set to lose everything unless they play there cards right and know where they stand.

The enemy of my enemy if my friend, at least for now. That doesn't mean they can't hate one another.

No, he talks like a troll whos had enough BS from people and wants to put an end to it. How would you feel if everything you put faith in stabbed you in the neck, and you had to recover, knowing those who should be under your protection were being killed and you unable to help them.

No it really doesn't. You Don't seem to understand how well the alliance might have the right to take down Garrosh, the horde is set to lose everything unless they play there cards right and know where they stand.

The enemy of my enemy if my friend, at least for now. That doesn't mean they can't hate one another.

The enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. But if you play your cards right, you can get them to take the heat instead of you.
I do know the Alliance's list of grievances against the Horde--a list they, for reasons of "the story", choose to blame purely on Garrosh.

I also know, however, that so far defending and countering has worked out pretty well for the Alliance in Mists. Why Varian would send the troops in now when there's a chance to let the enemy weaken itself is beyond me.

It became clear that it wasn’t realistic to try to get the audience back to being more hardcore, as it had been in the past. -- Tom Chilton

Well, the Alliance wants revenge for what Garrosh did.
So you can either join in the rebellion or try it on your own and die.

I just don't like the way it's framed. I can accept that the rebellion and Alliance need to work together, but the Alliance doesn't need to "join" the rebellion. It should be framed as teaming up, but here we just have the Alliance joining the Horde. Vol'jin points out that the Alliance needs him but fails to recognize that he needs the Alliance.

Alliance players aren't asking for the sun and the moon here. We just want to be acknowledged and have our own characters involved instead of joining the Horde forces.